EFFECT OF EDUCATIONAL BUDGET AND EDUCATIONAL QUALITY TO EDUCATION QUALITY

Transcription

1 International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management United Kingdom Vol. VI, Issue 4, April ISSN EFFECT OF EDUCATIONAL BUDGET AND EDUCATIONAL QUALITY TO EDUCATION QUALITY CASE STUDY ON THE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL (SMA) Mukhtaruddin Ph.D Student in Economic Science Postgraduate Program, Syiah Kuala University, Indonesia Said Muhammad Economics Faculty of Syiah Kuala University, Indonesia Raja Masbar Economics Faculty of Syiah Kuala University, Indonesia Muhammad Nasir Economics Faculty of Syiah Kuala University, Indonesia Abstract This article is about the relationship between educational budget and the quality of educators on the quality of education. This study aims to determine the effect of infrastructure budget, budget for improving the quality of educators and quality of educators on the quality of education at Senior High School (SMA) in Aceh Province. The data analyzed is panel data from 23 regencies / cities of Aceh province during the period The study found that partially the infrastructure budget and the quality of educators had a negative effect on the quality of education, while the quality of education budget does not affect the quality of education at Senior High School (SMA) in Aceh Province. Simultaneously the infrastructure budget, the budget for improving the quality of educators and the quality of educators have a positive effect on the quality of education. Keywords: Infrastructure Budget, Budget of Quality Improvement, Quality of Educator, Quality of Education, Panel of Regression Licensed under Creative Common Page 141

2 Mukhtaruddin, Muhammad, Masbar & Nasir INTRODUCTION Education is a key indicator of human resource quality and development. Education as a determinant of the progress of the nation and as the most effective means to improve the quality of life so as to improve the welfare and prosperity of the nation. Educational issues are inseparable from the budgetary issues and the quality of educators, hence the budget and quality of the decisive educators in improving the quality of education. Supriadi (2001), that the education budget is one of the most important input components in the implementation of education. Fatah (1998), states that factors affecting the quality of education are adequate budget, qualified teachers, facilities and infrastructure of good education. Sedarmayanti (2001), Mangkunegara (2000), teacher is one of the educational staff who have a role as one of the determinants of success of educational goals. Hasibuan (2001), also stated that teachers are the determinants in educational activities, especially those related to teaching and learning activities. Nana (2002), that 76.6% of student learning outcomes are influenced by the performance of teachers, among others, pedagogical competence 32.43%, professional competence 32.38% and 8.60% personality competence. An overview of the education budget, the quality of educators and the quality of senior high school education in the Province of Aceh for the period of , can be seen in the following graph and table: Figure1. Total Direct Spending by Province For Education 2015 (000,000) DKI Pabar Aceh Riau Kalsel Jatim Kaltim Banten DIY Jateng Kepri Jambi Sumut Sumsel Kalteng Maluku Bali Bengkulu Lampung Sulteng Kalbar Jabar Malut Sulsel Sumbar Kaltara Papua Sulbar Sulut Sultra Gorontalo NTB NTT Babel Source: Ministry of Education and Culture Center for Education Data and Statistics and Culture, Jakarta (2016) Licensed under Creative Common Page 142

3 International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom Figure 2. Total Direct Spending by Province For Education 2015 (000,000) DKI Riau Aceh Kalsel Banten Kaltim Kepri Jabar Jatim DIY Malut Lampung Jambi Jateng Bengkulu Maluku Sulbar Sulteng Papua Bali Kalbar Sumut Pabar NTB Sumbar Kalteng Sulsel Gorontalo Sulut Kaltara Babel NTT Sumsel Sultra Source: Ministry of Education and Culture Center for Education Data and Statistics and Culture, Jakarta (2016) The graph above illustrates the magnitude of education budgets between Provinces in Indonesia, Aceh Province in 2015 and 2016 occupying the education budget ranking of the 3rd of 34 Provinces in Indonesia, a considerable education budget for Aceh Province in improving the quality of education. Table 1. Educators' Quality Improvement Measured By Average Test Score of Teacher Competencies Aceh Province and National Competition Period Pedagogik Professional Number Year Aceh Average National Aceh Average National Ranking Ranking Score Average Score Score Average Score Source: Aceh Education Office / Ministry of Education and Culture (2017) Licensed under Creative Common Page 143

4 Mukhtaruddin, Muhammad, Masbar & Nasir Table 1 above illustrates the quality of high school educators of Aceh Province and its comparison nationally, the quality of educators in the province of Aceh greatly decreased compared to other provinces in Indonesia, both in terms of pedagogic competence and professional competence. Table 2. Quality of High School Education Province of Aceh in Measure With Average Score National Examination Aceh Ranking National Level Average value Average value Number School year National National exam National exam Rating for Aceh for National /2012 7,76 7, /2013 5,97 6, /2014 5,52 5, /2015 6,64 7, /2016 5,04 6,85 32 Source: National Education Standards Agency Ministry of Education National / Aceh Education Office (processed, 2017). Table 2 shows the quality of senior high school education for the period of Aceh Province and national comparison, Aceh Province is far behind the quality of senior high school education compared to many provinces in Indonesia. The data the authors found in this study, that the budget for education in Aceh Province is very large compared to many provinces in Indonesia, but the quality of education is greatly decreased, this is a problem in a study, because theoretically according to; (1998), Mankiw et al (1992), Romer (1994), Heyneman (1983), states the quality of education is greatly influenced by the budget factor and the quality of educators, if the budget and quality of educators good, it will be better the quality of education in a region. LITERATURE REVIEW Becker (1975), stated that each activity requires a budget at this time and will increase productivity in the future. Supriadi (2003), states that the education budget is one of the important input components in the organization of education. Mulyasa (2002), stated that the education budget is one of the resources that directly support the effectiveness and efficiency of education management. Edgar (1983), that the cost and quality of education are directly linked. Licensed under Creative Common Page 144

5 International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom Education budget is an important component, because the budget can improve learning facilities and infrastructure and the budget can also improve the quality of educators, so that the process will be able to improve the quality of education. Derzayeva (2014), investment budget for education greatly affects positively to the quality of education. Birchler (2016), education spending can improve the quality of education. Biltagy (2012), states that there is a positive relationship between individual income on the quality of education. Glushak et al (2015), states that the high quality of education is caused by budgetary factors. Victor (2011), that investment in education is needed (budget). Minister of Education and Culture (2014), conveying the education budget is very important in the success of education, whether the quality of education is strongly supported by the strength of the budget. Simkovic (2013), that allocating educational resources (budget and teacher quality) more efficiently will benefit the students. In relation to this, the quality of educators is also an important factor that can directly affect the teaching and learning process, so that educators can determine the quality and quality of students. Volosovets (2017), the quality of education is influenced by the budget factor and the quality of educators. María (2017), the role of teachers is very influential in improving the quality of student education through the teaching process. Benos (2016), that the quality of education is important and as a determinant of productivity. The quality of teacher education determines the quality of student education. Ramos et al (2010), the positive impact of human capital on regional productivity. Nana (2002), that 76.6% of student learning outcomes are influenced by teacher performance. Palomino (2017), budgets and teachers play an important role in improving the quality of student education. Hamidi (2007), a good and qualified teacher will succeed in simplifying teaching to be easily understood by the students. Geringer (2010) a good and qualified teacher is one of the factors that influence student's learning compared to other factors. RESEARCH METHOD This research uses secondary data that is data obtained from second or secondary source (Bungin, 2001). All data were obtained from the Dinas Keuangan Aceh (DKA), the Aceh Provincial Education Office, the Aceh National Examination Agency, the Aceh Provincial Bappeda (Bappeda), the Central Bureau of Statistics (Badan Pusat Statistik, BPS) and other official bodies related to the research issue in Aceh Province. Data analyzed are government expenditure data for educational budget and quality data of educators to see the quality of education. Election Year and Regency / City and educational level studied is determined by the availability of data. Licensed under Creative Common Page 145

6 Mukhtaruddin, Muhammad, Masbar & Nasir The analysis model used is panel data regression analysis model that is dependency variable dependent variable to independent variable, to estimate the average value of dependent variable based on free variable value (Gujarati, 2011). The research model used is: KP it = a+ β 1 X 1it + β 2 X 2it +β 3 X 3it +ε it atau, lnkp it = a + β 1 lnai it + β 2 lnapmp it +β 3 lnkpd it +ε it Where: KP = Quality of education a = Constants AI = Infrastructure budget APMP = Budget improvements of educators KPd = Quality of educators β1 = Coefficient of infrastructure budget β2 = Coefficient of education quality improvement budget β3 = Coefficient of educator quality ε = Error term i = Research area t = Time / period Variables Operational - The quality of education is all the inputs that affect the student's performance (output) as measured by the average national exam score of the senior high school level of each District / City, (Fuller, 1985). - Infrastructure education budget is the education budget used by each regency / city specifically for the development of infrastructure / facilities and educational infrastructure to support the development of education which is calculated in million rupiah. - The budget for improving the quality of educators is the education budget used by each regency / municipality for the improvement of educator competence calculated in million rupiah. - The quality of the educator is the level of educator's ability or intelligence assessed through pedagogical competence, professional competence, personality competence and social competence, calculated from each District / City, (Law Number 14 Year 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers). Licensed under Creative Common Page 146

7 International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Panel Data Model Estimation The panel data model analysis uses three estimation approaches, namely (a) least squares approach Pooled Least Square (PLS); (b) fixed effect approach Fixed Effect Model (FEM); (c) Random Effects Random Effect Model (REM) approach. Pooled Least Square, Fixed Effects Model and Random Effect Model Pooled Least Square (PLS) approaches simply pooled all time series and cross-section data, this model estimates panel data by Ordinary Least Square (OLS) method as one of the requirements to perform F-Restricted test, after Pooled Least Square (PLS), the next step is data processing with Fixed Effect Model (FEM) approach, the estimated processing of this model using E-Views 9.0 program and obtained the following results: Table 4. Panel Data Regression: Pooled Least Square, Fixed Effects Model and Random Effect Pooled Least Square Fixed Effect Model Random Effect R-squared 0,151 0,389 0,175 Adjusted R-squared 0,128 0,217 0,153 Source: Secondary data processed, 2017 Chow Test and Hausman Test Testing to choose whether the model used Pooled Least Square Model or Fixed Effect Model, then used F-Restricted test by looking at probability value F, if the probability value F at FE <α 1%, 5%, or 10%), then H o rejected, so the use of Pooled Least Square (PLS) model is considered less precise. Hypothesis testing is done through: H o : Pooled Least Square Model (Restricted) H a : Fixed Effect Model (Unrestricted) From chow test results obtained probability value F less than 5%, so H o rejected. So is the case with the test hausman test, if the probability value F in RE <α 1%, 5%, or 10%), then H o is rejected, so the use of random effect model is considered less precise. The hypothesis is as follows: H o : Random Effect Model (Restricted) H a : Fixed Effect Model (Unrestricted) Licensed under Creative Common Page 147

8 Mukhtaruddin, Muhammad, Masbar & Nasir Table 5. Results of Chow Test and Hausman Test Effects Test Chow Test Hausman Test Probability 0,0195 0,2240 Source: Secondary data processed, 2017 In Table 5, the F-statistic value of hausman at is obtained so that the probability value F- statistic> 5%, then H o is accepted so that the panel data model used is Random Effect Model (REM). Test Lagrange Multiplier Lagrange mulitiplier test is performed to select Pooled Least Square Model panel data model with Random Effect Model. This is done because the results in the two tests above are inconsistent. H o : Pooled Least Square Model (Restricted) H a : Random Effect Model (Restricted) Based on lagrange mulitiplier test results, the probability value is less than 5% ( <0,05). Thus the estimation used is the random effect model. Hypothesis testing In testing the hypothesis of this research done by analyzing and testing variable of education budget and variable of quality of educator influence quality of education in Aceh Province. There are several analyzes that will be done such as the influence of independent variables to the dependent variable partially or simultaneously and determination. Simultaneous Influence Analysis, Infrastructure Budget, Budget of Quality Improvement of Educator and Quality of Educator on Quality of Education In this section will be tested to determine whether the independent variables simultaneously affect the dependent variable and how much influence simultaneously. If the probability value F (statistic)> 0.05 simultaneously the independent variable has no effect on the dependent variable, on the other hand if the probability value F (statistic) <0.05 simultaneously the independent variable has an effect on the dependent variable. Based on the estimation result, the probability value of F-statistic (0,000085) <(0,05). So simultaneously the infrastructure budget, the budget for improving the quality of educators and the quality of educators have a positive effect on the quality of education in High School in Aceh Province. Licensed under Creative Common Page 148

9 International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom This is in accordance with research conducted by Birchler (2016) and Clement et al (2012), that educational budget and quality of educators will improve the quality of education. Similarly, presented by the Minister of Education and Culture (Mendikbud, 2014) in his meeting said that the education budget is very important in the success of education, both poor quality and educational progress is strongly supported by the strength of budget and quality of educators in order to improve the quality of education in Indonesia. Table 6. Hypothesis Testing Results Based on Random Effect Model Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-statistic Probability C AI? APMP? KPD? Random Effects (Cross) Variable Coefficient Individual influence on the quality of education _BANDAACEH--C ,28 _SABANG--C ,23 _LHOKSEMAWE-- 4,22 C _LANGSA--C ,24 _SUBULUSSALAM- 4,24 -C _ABESAR--C ,23 _PIDIE--C ,23 _ATENGAH--C ,28 _BENERMERIAH-- 4,23 C _ASINGKIL--C ,23 _ATENGGARA--C ,26 _PIJAY--C ,22 _BIREUEN--C ,19 _AUTARA--C ,21 _ATIMUR--C ,18 Licensed under Creative Common Page 149

10 Mukhtaruddin, Muhammad, Masbar & Nasir _ATAMIANG--C ,20 _AJAYA--C ,20 _ABARAT--C ,18 _NAGANRAYA--C ,20 _SIMEULUE--C ,20 _ABDIYA--C ,14 _ASELATAN--C ,22 _GAYOLUES--C ,17 Table 6... R-squared Adjusted R-squared Probability (Fstatistic) Source: Secondary data processed, 2017 Based on the results of data processing in Table 6, Adjusted R-squared value is This suggests that 15.3% of the variation in the quality of education in Aceh Province can be explained by the variables of infrastructure budgets, the budget for the quality of educators and the quality of educators. While 84.7% variation of education quality in Aceh Province is explained by other variables outside model. Besides, the research results also explain that there is a change in infrastructure budget, budget for improving the quality of educators and the quality of educators both between regions and between times have an individual influence on the quality of education. Based on the results of the above interpretations, all districts / municipalities in the province of Aceh have the value of quality education above the number four. The Regency / City which has the highest quality of education during the study period is Central Aceh District with a value of 4.28 and Regency with the lowest quality of education is Southwest Aceh District with a value of Partial Influence Analysis of Infrastructure Budget, Budget for Quality Improvement of Educators and Quality of Educators on Quality of Education It is known that the infrastructure budget has a negative effect of on the quality of education in Aceh Province with a significance level of 5%. This shows that a 1% increase in the education budget will reduce the level of education quality in Aceh Province by 3.17%. The estimation results illustrate that infrastructure budget variables have a negative and significant impact on the quality of education in Aceh Province. This finding is in line with research conducted by Yuliana (2009), which states that the education budget affects the quality of Licensed under Creative Common Page 150

11 International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom education. This is also in line with what was put forward by Ablo (1998), Victor (2011), Biltagy (2012), Derzayeva (2014), and Glushak, et al. (2015), that education budget affects the quality of education. But the results obtained in this study have a negative effect, meaning that the education budget for infrastructure will reduce the quality of education in Aceh Province. The estimation result, the variable of educator quality improvement does not affect the quality of education in Aceh Province, with probability value greater than 5% (0,1248> 0,05). Furthermore, the results of estimation on the variable quality of educators have an effect on and significantly to the quality of education. However, this result also shows that the value of quality coefficient of educators is negative ( ).If you look at the data on the education budget for senior high schools in Aceh Province during the year-to-year study period ( ), it has improved both from the Central, Provincial and District / City. However, the increase in infrastructure education budget has not been able to improve the quality of education in Aceh Province.This may be possible because the increase of infrastructure budget is not accompanied by the quality of education facilities and infrastructures, and it can be ascertained that there is no balance of educational development between educational facilities and infrastructure so that the teaching and learning process can not be done optimally in order to improve the quality of education. For example, good roads, good school buildings, but facilities for teaching and learning are inadequate and with a very low level of educational quality, such as remote areas. This means that the use of educational budget has not been so well targeted, so the result of infrastructure development / educational facilities and infrastructure has no positive and significant effect on the quality of education in High School in Aceh Province. Furthermore, the quality of education also there are variables that influence the quality of educators. The quality of educators also has a negative and significant effect with the coefficient value of ( ) on the quality of education in high school in Aceh Province. This means that the level of quality of educators at Senior High School in Aceh Province can not improve the quality of education. This can happen because the level of quality of educators at Senior High School (SMA) in Aceh Province is very low, so that educators are not able to maximally in fostering, building, educating, providing knowledge to their students in teaching and learning process, thus the output obtained by very low students. The reason for the low quality of educators at senior high schools in Aceh province is that the budget for improving the quality of educators is poorly budgeted, in addition to the level of formal education of teachers still very poorly educated compared to the number of teachers in senior high school in Aceh Province, one of which is a certified teacher in Aceh Province is very few or far behind compared with other provinces in Indonesia. Licensed under Creative Common Page 151

12 Mukhtaruddin, Muhammad, Masbar & Nasir Besides, the results of the study also show that the budget for improving the quality of educators does not affect the value of probability of ( ) on the quality of education at Senior High School (SMA) in Aceh Province. This is because the budget for improving the quality of educators is very little budgeted, so it is partially impossible to improve the quality of education. When compared to the education budget for infrastructure is much larger, but still also negatively affect the quality of education. The budget for improving the quality of educators is a resource in improving the quality of educators, the greater the budget the greater the opportunity to improve the quality of educators if the budget is really used in order to improve the quality of educators. Improving the quality of educators is important in encouraging the implementation of a conducive teaching and learning process, so that the educational output achieved will be good. CONCLUSIONS This study looks at the relationship between the education budget and the quality of educators on the quality of senior high school education in Aceh Province for the period of , finds the results and the conclusions are partially the education budget of infrastructure and the quality of educators negatively affect the quality of education, while the budget for quality improvement educators have no effect on the quality of education. In addition, simultaneous findings of infrastructure education budget, education quality improvement budget and quality of educators have a positive effect on the quality of education at high schools in Aceh Province. Thus it can be suggested that the government at the district / municipality level can use the right target education budget that can improve the quality of education, in addition it must also increase the budget for improving the quality of educators and improving the quality of educators properly. REFERENCES Baltagi, Bagi (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons. Barro, Robert J (1998). Human Capital and Growth in Cross Country Regressions, Journal of Economics. Jurnal of Economics Harvard University No Becker. Gary S (1975). Human Capital, 2d ed. (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research). Benos Nikos, Karagiannis Stelios (2016). Do education quality and spillovers matter? Evidence on human capital and productivity in Greece. Econ. Model. 54, Biltagy. Marwa (2012). Quality of Education, Earnings and Demand Function for Schooling in Egypt: An Economic Analysis. Proc. Social. Behav. Scien. 69, Birchler Kassandra, Michaelowa Katharina (2016). Making aid work for education in developing countries: An analysis of aid effectiveness for primary education coverage and quality. Inter. Journal. Educ. Devel. 48, Derzayeva G. G., Akhmadieva G. G (2014). Budgetary policy efficiency of municipalities in the field of education. Proc. Soc. Behav. Scien. 152, Licensed under Creative Common Page 152

13 International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom Edgar C. Morphet (1983). The Eeonomic and Pinancing of Education, Fourth Edition, New Jersey: Prenticce HaIl Inc., Engelwood Chiff, hal. 83. Fatah, Nanang (1998). Study on the Funding of Primary School Education. Publisher PT Remaja Rosda Karya, Bandung. Fuller, B (1985). Raising School Quality in Developing Countries: What Investments Boost Learning? Discussion Paper, Education and Training Series. Report No. EDT7. Glushak Nikolay, Katkow Yuriy, Glushak Olga, Katkowa Ekaterina, Kovaleva Natalia (2015). Contemporary Economic Aspects of Education Quality Management at the University. Proc. Soc. Behav. Scien. 214, Gujarati, Damodar (2011). Econometrics by Example. Palgrave Macmillan. Hasibuan, Malayu SP (2001). Human Resource Management. Jakarta: Earth Literacy.Heyneman, S. and A. Loxley (1983). The Distribution of Primary School Quality within High- and Low-Income Countries. Comparative Education Review, 27:1. Mangkunegara, Anwar Prabu (2000). Human Resource Management. Bandung: Rosdakarya Mankiw, N., Romer, D., Weil, D (1992). A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Q. J. Econ. 107 (2), María. J, Amorós - Hernández, E María., Solano-Urrea (2017). Working with emotions in the classroom: Future teachers attitudes and education. Proc Soc. Behav. Scien. 237, Mulyasa, E (2002). School Based Management. PT. Youth Rosdakarya. p Bandung (2008). Competency Standards and Teacher Certification, PT. Teens Rosda Karya: Bandung. Nana, Sudjana (2002). Basics of Teaching and Learning Process. Bandung: Sinar Baru. Palomino, M Pegalajar Carmen del (2017). Teacher training in the use of ICT for inclusion: differences between Early Childhood and Primary Education. Proced. Soci. Behavi. Scien. 237, Romer, P. M. (1994). Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, V.89: P Sedarmayanti (2001). Human Resources and Work Productivity. Bandung: Mandar Maju. Simkovic, M (2013). Risk-Based Student Loans. Washington and Lee Law Review, 70 (1), 527. Supriadi, Dedi (2001). Unit of Primary and Secondary Education Costs. Publisher PT Remaja Rosda Karya, Bandung. Supriadi, Dedi (2006). Unit of Primary and Secondary Education Costs. Publisher PT Remaja Rosda Karya, Bandung. Supriadi, Dedi (2003). Unit Cost of Primary and Secondary Education, Bandung: Youth Rosda works, p. 4. Law Number 14 Year 2005 Article 10 Paragraph (1) on Teachers and Lecturers. Volosovets, Tatiana., Ivan Kirillov & Alexander Buyanov (2017). Evaluating the quality of preschool education in Russia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 237, Yuliana. Sari, Elsa (2009). The Relationship of the Local Government Education Expenditure Budget and the Graduation Level of Basic Education to the Government of the Special Territory of Yogyakarta. Licensed under Creative Common Page 153